Posted by Gary on May 10, 2010
1 Chronicles 29:11-12 “Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Yours is the dominion, O Lord, and You exalt Yourself as head over all. Both riches and honor come from You, and You rule over all, and in Your hand is power and might; and it lies in Your hand to make great and to strengthen everyone.”
Last week I joined my daughter and her grade school class on a trip to Washington D.C. to tour the Capitol and visit the Smithsonian. As we walked about I saw what was the appearance of power everywhere. Dark suits, attaches, sunglasses back on the head, clusters of people outside of meeting rooms, names of influential people on office doors, to those whose hearts and lives are bound up in this world I am sure it is very impressive.
As I went through my day it was increasingly obvious that this is the place of action and those involved in it think themselves movers and shakers. But in truth, Washington and those in it do not know what power is nor do they possess it. Power belongs to God.
It was striking to me as I looked on the people in the suits with the briefcases that time is rolling over them like it has over every other Washington power broker in the past whose bodies are now being eaten by worms and whose souls have already gone to their place either to heaven by the mercy of the all-powerful God or to hell to receive there forever the justice of God.
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Gary on February 5, 2010
I find that the concern in me regarding today’s Christians and their political pursuits does not cease. I wrote an initial post entitled, “Trusting in Princes” to express my concern and revisit the topic today.
I understand fully that for now we are creatures of this world and much of our life must be taken up with the things of this world. We have to eat, work, sleep and have obligations that come from living in this world, this is all granted. Yet, the Bible commands the Christian to keep his focus, efforts and affections on the things above as much as possible (Colossians 3:1-2).What we think about, what we become joyful over or unhappy about reveals more than anything where we have placed our affections and trust.
I would ask Christians in our day to examine themselves to find out how much their thoughts, affections and trust are tied to the political happenings of this world compared to the things above and the gospel.
For example, how much do we find ourselves thinking about healthcare reform in comparison to thinking about how many people will die this day and enter eternity separated from Christ? How much time do we spend beefing up on political happenings compared to time beefing up on knowledge of Scripture, Christian living and theology? Are you more angry about the government czars appointed by the President than you are that 45,000,000 million babies have been slaughtered by our nation since the early 1970’s? Are you really angry about abortion? What have you ever done about it? How much do you know about the battle that surrounds abortion in comparison to what you know about the battles being fought in congress?
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Gary on March 17, 2009
In a recent Christian Science Monitor article entitled, “The Coming Evangelical Collapse” Michael Spencer holds forth the prediction that Evangelicalism as we know it will collapse within the next 10 years. While I am not certain about the time frame, I am in agreement with much of Spencer’s assessment and prediction. I would also say that a collapse of much of what is called Evangelicalism would be the best thing that could happen for the Christian faith in the west. Here is an excerpt from the beginning of the article:
“We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.
Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the “Protestant” 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.
This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.
Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I’m convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.”
I will leave you to read the article for yourself but I want to pick up on something Spencer points out which is one of the reasons he believes Evangelicalism will collapse. Spencer mentions that Evangelicals have identified themselves with “the cultural war and with political conservatism.” I cannot agree more and have shared my thoughts in this post. Here is the quote from Spencer’s article:
“Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.
The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can’t articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.”
It is that last line…“We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith” that stood out. I recently started reading again the book “The Screwtape Letters” by C.S. Lewis. If you are familiar with this book you know it is comprised of a series of imagined letters between two demons, one more experienced and of higher rank who corresponds with his nephew, an underling named Wormwood.
In letter number VII Screwtape gives his nephew advice on how to bring harm to his assignment, a man who has recently become a Christian. The issue has to do with whether the underling should encourage his patient to be a pacifist or patriot in response to the recent war (I assume WW II). The demonic advice seems to be strongly at work in our day. I will leave it with you to ponder:
“Whichever he adopts, your main task will be the same. Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacifism as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of a partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the “Cause,” in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce in favour of the war-effort or of Pacifism.
The attitude you want to guard against is that in which temporal affairs are treated primarily as material for obedience. Once you have made the World an end, and Faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades, matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours—and the more “religious” (on those terms) the more securely ours. I could show you a pretty cageful down here.”
Your affectionate uncle,
SCREWTAPE
Posted by Gary on November 14, 2008
A South Carolina Catholic priest has had the audacity to tell his parishioners that their claim to faith should govern their choices in life. In a day when you and I are told that we can define what being a Christian is or that we can practice Christianity cafeteria style (“I’ll take that, but not that”) the Reverend Jay Scott Newman has spoken clearly:
"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."
Under the judgment of divine law? Reverend Newman don’t you know that we don’t believe such a thing even exists? At least not for people who go to church. We really believe that judgment only awaits only a few people and of course not us or anyone we love. Judgment belongs to people who do horrible things like murder people, you know like Hitler and his six million or Stalin and his thirty million. You don’t mean to assert that our annual murder of forty two million babies will bring divine judgment do you?
Condemnation? Reverend Newman you and your kind are the real extremists, you mean to tell us that we are sinful and evil people who deserve to be punished. Even worse you would have us believe that God actually condemns people and sends them to hell. Maybe your God Reverend Newman but not our God, our God is love. Yes, we know His Word contains many warnings of His justice and holiness but we know that God finally realized that He was being unloving and harsh and changed Himself:
Malachi 3:6 "For I, the LORD, do not change…”
Jesus doesn’t have anything to do with judgment:
Revelation 19:11-15 “And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.”
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Gary on November 8, 2008
1 Corinthians 11:19 “…for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.”
A third diocese recently split from the Episcopal church over, “the Bible, gay relationships and other issues” according to this story. It is encouraging to see faithfulness to God’s truth in a day that is marked by such unfaithfulness. A fourth diocese will take a similar vote in one week.
Posted by Gary on October 31, 2008
Psalm 146:3 “Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.”
My question is very simple, “How much control did the believers of the New Testament era have over the government that ruled them?” The answer: virtually none. Here is another question, “What accusation did the non-believing world make against the Christians of the first century?”
Acts 17:6 “These who have turned the world upside down have come here too.”
How could this be? You mean that the Caesars of the first century were not Christians? There was not a Christian/conservative majority in the Roman senate? Believers were not collecting signatures on petitions against ungodly laws? How could they ever have turned the world upside down without any hand on the political steering wheel? Could it be that their faith was in God?
We are well into another election cycle and I grieve. American Christians are blind, blind to the fact that we have reduced the Christian faith down to a political movement. Oh, we are in high places no doubt. We are rubbing shoulders and throwing weight around. Someone please tell me what this has all done to promote and further the gospel.
What does the average unbeliever think of Christianity in our nation today? They believe it is all about political control and power. Who are we winning? I believe with all my heart that what we have done these past few decades is something to be repented of. Our trust is in princes and the power of this world. Who are we kidding? In what way are we turning the world upside down? We are powerless and our political grasping is proof that it is so.
What matters to us is the Supreme Court, control of Congress and the White House. What will we have if we were to have all these? We will still have a nation of people estranged from God but by golly, we’re going to legislate them into the kingdom. We have nearly forfeited our opportunity to share the gospel of Christ, hardly anyone believes that this is what we are after anymore. The unbeliever thinks to himself, “This is about you imposing your way of life on me” and he is right. We are not after heart change and knowledge of Christ, if we were our reliance would be on God not on political power.
I come to my questions again. Someone please tell me how the Christians of the New Testament turned the world upside down without relying on political power? Why are we not seeking the power that they had? How have we come to think that we have found a better way? Thank God that His purposes cannot be thwarted despite how determined His people are to do so.
Posted by Gary on September 12, 2008
While the primary emphasis of this blog is not politics we consider political things especially as they touch the things of the kingdom of God. Of course the issue of consideration at this time is Sarah Palin, John McCain’s Christian, pro-life, conservative, Vice-Presidential running mate. What are my thoughts about Palin as Vice-President? Well let me frame my thoughts this way….
Recently I was speaking with a dear couple from our congregation about an event that will be held by our church this fall. As I asked one particular question Carol said to me, “Well I suppose it depends upon what we say the purpose of the event is.” I remember how powerfully this struck me, something of course that I know must be chief in our consideration of anything, “What is the purpose”?
I would morph this question just slightly when it comes to considering the nomination of Sarah Palin, to “What is the goal?” or more pointedly, “For what kingdom are we living?” I am convinced that the goal you are after will determine how you view Sarah Palin’s nomination. If the goal is the kingdom of this world (the United States) then she is in many ways a wonderful pick. I listened to her convention speech and would have to say that politically I concurred almost without exception.
But is the kingdom of this world what I am to be most committed to as a disciple of Jesus Christ? Let us be mindful of this, as concerns the kingdom of this world it could not have been better than to have Jesus crowned king of Israel and to use His power and goodness to “transform the world”. Of course we know that Jesus had another kingdom in mind:
John 6:14-15 “Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, "This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world." So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone.”
If the thinking of most Christians today prevailed, Jesus should have taken the kingdom and went to work politically.
But it is not the kingdom of this world that Christians are to put first are we? Our nation and this world are important, we have responsibilities and a role to play but are we to do so at the cost of altering God’s commands and principles? Never.
A few considerations and I’ll assume the loss of most friends by the end:
Should not those who claim to value the kingdom of God above the kingdom of this world be concerned about our willingness to set God’s created order on its ear by placing women in places of authority over men? Yes, we’ve been putting women in authority over men for decades (we’ve also been unraveling for decades). Is this chauvinism? It depends all-together whether or not you believe the Bible to be God’s eternal, infallible Word or not:
1 Timothy 2:11-15 “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”
God made Adam first, why was that? Why did He not make Eve first? Ok, let’s take a step closer to where we are today, you know, equality…why didn’t He create them at the same time? Couldn’t God have done that? Couldn’t God have made them simultaneously communicating forever that they were equal in their role and authority in His sight? I hear the teeth gnashing…God created the woman to be the man’s help-mate. Not only does the Palin political office place her in authority over men but it makes her husband her help-mate, the roles have been reversed.
Then of course there is the issue of motherhood. Is it God’s design for men to fulfill the mother’s role? Well if I may speak bluntly, he did not give men breasts that produce milk did He? Did he give men the same degree of compassion, patience and intuition with children that He has given to women? I cannot offer my children what God designed for them to have from my wife. I am not going to throw myself on the ground and whine and pound my fists about this. Is it unfair that my wife is enabled in a way that I am not? Shall I cry unfairness? Why would I? It is beautiful. It is beautiful to watch motherhood and I love my children too much to take from them what they need so that my wife as the world would say can go find herself. My wife doesn’t need to look for herself, she isn’t lost or undiscovered, God has told her who she is and she embraces it. The question is being asked, "Can Palin be a mother and be the Vice-President" quite honestly she can’t be the mother God intends her to be and be the Vice-President. The question is not can she but should she
While I’m burning the bridge I might as well go all the way…What about the issue of judgment? Has God given women the same kind of judgment that he has men in the realm of authority and leadership? “It was not Adam who was deceived but the woman…” (1 Timothy 2:14). When it comes to judgment in many realms you would do well to listen to my wife instead of me. I think of this example from Scripture:
Genesis 21:9-13 “Now Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking. Therefore she said to Abraham, "Drive out this maid and her son, for the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac." The matter distressed Abraham greatly because of his son. But God said to Abraham, "Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named. "And of the son of the maid I will make a nation also, because he is your descendant."
Wow, God is telling Abraham to listen to his wife. Does this mean he abdicates his role to her? No, it means that God has given women insight in certain realms that husbands are wise to acknowledge and factor in. By the way, it was Abraham who had to say that Ishmael must leave. God did not tell Sarah to make the decision and announce it.
But what else does God’s Word tell us about the difference in the judgment God has given to men as opposed to women?:
Numbers 30:1-8 “Then Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the sons of Israel, saying, "This is the word which the LORD has commanded. "If a man makes a vow to the LORD, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth. "Also if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by an obligation in her father’s house in her youth, and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand. "But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her because her father had forbidden her. "However, if she should marry while under her vows or the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself, and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day he hears it, then her vows shall stand and her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand. "But if on the day her husband hears of it, he forbids her, then he shall annul her vow which she is under and the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her.”
Now what does this reveal? Certainly that God has ordained levels of authority between men and women but also that because the man has a higher authority He is granted by God discernment and judgment to accompany his authority, this discernment and judgment must of necessity be at another level than that which God gave to women. This is not a matter of men being more highly valued by God than women are. It is not a matter of unfairness. It is the Creator having made things as would please Him and we being rebels hate it.
Of course a Vice-Presidency will never suffice. The next obvious step will be a woman President and a female Chairman excuse me, Chair-woman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the next step would include women leading our armies into battle. All the while men to whom God has given these roles and the nature and equipping to fulfill these roles will be forced to suppress all that God has built into them. Then let me tell you what will happen, men will come unhinged because we are working against the created order. Men will become more female and lose their minds and in many cases their souls.
The world I know calls this thinking insane. Quite a charge from people who worship themselves, whose marriages are ending in divorce at staggering rates, who are plagued by sexually transmitted diseases, who kill their offspring by millions, who have children being raised by their grandparents, who don’t know who their fathers are, whose mothers are on the fourth man living in the house and I’m insane?
You may think this all an exaggeration but it is all built into what is happening by our intention to have women ascend into roles that God has not designated for them.
Christians have their eyes on the wrong kingdom. Yes, we may have the joy of winning some battles on the Palin path; we may gain control of the peach orchard and the Devil’s Den while all the while we are slaughtered on our Pickett’s Charge.
Posted by Gary on March 1, 2008
Isaiah 66:2 “But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.”
I would like to ask you what may seem to be a foolish question. Ready, here it is… “Do you want to hear from God?” Most I’m sure would respond, “Of course I do.”
It is our great privilege as Christians to be people with whom God has chosen speak.
That having been said I think we need to be honest, hearing from God is not always pleasant. When most say that they want to hear from God I fear that they mean that they want to hear from Him as long as He is going to say the things they want Him to: “You’re fine”, “They’re wrong”, “No, I would never ask you to make such a sacrifice”, “Of course I’ll heal you” are all things we are quite willing to hear from God.
I am reminded of this incident from the life of the people of Israel; they said they wanted to hear from God and asked Jeremiah to bring them God’s Word:
Jeremiah 42:2-6 “Please let our petition come before you, and pray for us to the Lord your God…that the Lord your God may tell us the way in which we should walk and the thing that we should do.” Then Jeremiah the prophet said to them, ‘I have heard you. Behold, I am going to pray to the Lord your God in accordance with your words; and I will tell you the whole message which the Lord will answer you. I will not keep back a word from you.’ Then they said to Jeremiah, ‘May the Lord be a true and faithful witness against us if we do not act in accordance with the whole message with which the Lord your God will send you to us. Whether it is pleasant or unpleasant, we will listen to the voice of the Lord our God to whom we are sending you, so that it may go well with us when we listen to the voice of the Lord our God.’”
But guess what happened when Jeremiah brought the people God’s message?
Jeremiah 43:1-2 “But as soon as Jeremiah, whom the Lord their God had sent, had finished telling all the people all the words of the Lord their God…all the arrogant men said to Jeremiah, ‘You are telling a lie! The Lord our God has not sent you to say, ‘You are not to enter Egypt to reside there.’”
Did the people want to hear from God? Only if God was going to tell them what they wanted to hear. May God save us from being this way.
When it comes to hearing from God there is something very important to keep in mind, His voice may come from anywhere at anytime, often through means we would least expect and this is on purpose.
When God speaks He sends with His Word a humility test, to see how willing we are to hear Him. He does this often by speaking to us through people, means and situations that we might if we are not careful reject out of pride.
God sent His people Moses who was slow of speech. It was said of Paul that “his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible” (2 Corinthians 10:10).
God rebuked Abraham for lying through a pagan king (Genesis 20:9), rebuked the prophet Balaam using a donkey (Numbers 22:30) and encouraged Elijah not through powerful demonstrations but a “gentle whisper” (1 Kings 19:12).
God may bring us His truth through the frankness of a child or spouse. He may remind us of our duty through the appearing of the socially undesirable in our life. God may even reveal His will through a politician that you personally disagree with and disdain. Are you willing to hear God however it is He may choose to speak to you?
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Gary on December 19, 2007
Psalm 146:3 "Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation."
My question is very simple, "How much control did the believers of the New Testament era have over the government that ruled them?" The answer: virtually none. Here is another question, "What accusation did the non-believing world make against the Christians of the first century?"
Acts 17:6 "These who have turned the world upside down have come here too."
How could this be? You mean that the Caesars of the first century were not Christians? There was not a Christian/conservative majority in the Roman senate? Believers were not collecting signatures on petitions against ungodly laws? How could they ever have turned the world upside down without any hand on the political steering wheel? Could it be that their faith was in God?
We are well into another election cycle and I grieve. American Christians are blind, blind to the fact that we have reduced the Christian faith down to a political movement. Oh, we are in high places no doubt. We are rubbing shoulders and throwing weight around. Someone please tell me what this has all done to promote and further the gospel.
What does the average unbeliever think of Christianity in our nation today? They believe it is all about political control and power. Who are we winning? I believe with all my heart that what we have done these past few decades is something to be repented of. Our trust is in princes and the power of this world. Who are we kidding? In what way are we turning the world upside down? We are powerless and our political grasping is proof that it is so.
What matters to us is the Supreme Court, control of Congress and the White House. What will we have if we were to have all these? We will still have a nation of people estranged from God but by golly, we’re going to legislate them into the kingdom. We have nearly forfeited our opportunity to share the gospel of Christ, hardly anyone believes that this is what we are after anymore. The unbeliever thinks to himself, "This is about you imposing your way of life on me" and he is right. We are not after heart change and knowledge of Christ, if we were our reliance would be on God not on political power.
I come to my questions again. Someone please tell me how the Christians of the New Testament turned the world upside down without relying on political power? Why are we not seeking the power that they had? How have we come to think that we have found a better way? I fear for what the next eleven months are going to mean for the gospel. Thank God that His purposes cannot be thwarted despite how determined His people are to do so.
Posted by Gary on November 29, 2007
I have written previously and hope to again as election times draws closer about the Church’s unhealthy involvement in politics. The Church in America has placed its hope in princes and we are dishonoring our Master and harming His gospel by doing so.
That being said, it is also true that the Church is to be involved in the lives of the unsaved, and what I am finding more and more is that many of the unsaved have had their lives effected terribly by un-Godly and unwise government philosophy and policy.
The particular area that I have been thinking about of late is the area of requests for financial/material help from churches. Our church regularly receives requests for food, gasoline and payment of rent and utility bills. As you talk with people in the request process two things are often evident. First, often laziness seems to be an issue, many people do not want to do anything but simply want the church (or someone) to pay for what they need. Many of those seeking help do not have jobs and are living on some form(s) of government assistance. The second thing you often see is a brash expectation of help, it seems more and more that people believe that it is someone’s obligation to help them and if the answer is “no” or if there are any expectations placed on the recipient, the resentment comes to the surface.
I am aware of the command of Jesus:
Matthew 5:42 “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.”
But is this a blanket command from Jesus? Is there no further consideration to be made? No one is questioning whether or not the Church and individual Christians should help the needy, it is a privilege and joy to help those who are truly needy. The issue is defining needy at a stage in the game when government entitlement programs have been in place for decades and entire generations have been led to believe that they cannot provide for themselves and that it is someone else’s responsibility to meet their needs. Does God intend for us to give things to those who will not work if they are able? I often marvel that people who do not have the money to pay their electric bill have a cell phone, cable television and in many cases smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol and somehow have money for these things.
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Theundershepherd on December 23, 2005
My brother Bill was recently asked the following five questions during a conversation he had with a friend who attends a seeker sensitive church; he passed them on to me asking my thoughts. Instead of answering these in the comment section, I decided to make them a post.
1. “Look at what Jesus did, he created bread and fish for those who came to see him. What’s the difference between that and our coffee shop?"
My first response to this without seeking to be funny is that Jesus didn’t charge people for the bread and fish, equating the miraculous feeding of the 4,000 or 5,000 with a church coffee shop is quite a stretch. Of course, another obvious difference is that what Jesus did was a miracle and served to prove that He was the Son of God, a coffee shop in a church seeks to prove that the Church is not like a church but is a lot like Starbuck’s.
At the core, I would say that one must consider the vast difference between why Jesus fed the crowds who came to listen to Him in comparison to offering churchgoers a coffee shop. Having coffee is not a necessity and certainly, those frequenting the coffee shop are not doing so out of desperate hunger.
When we read the Bible and the events of the miraculous feeding of the 4,000 we see that Jesus fed the people because they had not eaten for some time, Jesus actually feared that they would not make their journey home because of weakness:
Matthew 15:32-38 "And Jesus called His disciples to Him, and said, "I feel compassion for the people, because they have remained with Me now three days and have nothing to eat; and I do not want to send them away hungry, for they might faint on the way." 33 The disciples said to Him, "Where would we get so many loaves in this desolate place to satisfy such a large crowd?" 34 And Jesus said to them, "How many loaves do you have?" And they said, "Seven, and a few small fish." 35 And He directed the people to sit down on the ground; 36 and He took the seven loaves and the fish; and giving thanks, He broke them and started giving them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 37 And they all ate and were satisfied, and they picked up what was left over of the broken pieces, seven large baskets full. 38 And those who ate were four thousand men, besides women and children."
I would like to make a few points here: Jesus did not provide the food to get people to come hear Him, the people came to hear the Word of God and were actually listening for three days and either didn’t have any food or ran out; far from being a food atmosphere, this was a fasting atmosphere. Your friend’s comparison with a church coffee shop is actually the exact opposite of what happened with Jesus. The seeker sensitive church offers the coffee shop as an attraction, appealing to man’s appetite both for food and for a happening place to get him to come to church. The people in the Bible did not come because food was offered or because of atmosphere but because the Word of God was offered and far from seeking refreshment, they sat in their place and listened for the course of three days. (Let me point out that the people listening to Jesus were seekers, why weren’t they put off by going without eating? Would the seeker sensitive church of today promote a three day emphasis on the Word of God telling the people they probably won’t eat much during that time?” If seekers were willing then to put their hunger on hold then, why wouldn’t the seekers of today?)
Further, when it becomes clear that some are interested in the food in connection with Jesus after the miracle we see how Jesus responds:
John 6:24-27 "So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they themselves got into the small boats, and came to Capernaum seeking Jesus. 25 When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, "Rabbi, when did You get here?" 26 Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."
Your friend asks what’s wrong with using the coffee for a draw and Jesus makes it clear that His feeding was not a "draw" it was true food and those who do not come to Him seeking the bread from heaven but the bread of earth are rebuked. I not only fail to see a correlation between your friend’s comparison but actually the very opposite when the Bible is consulted.
2. Doesn’t the Bible say we are called to bring him glory with different gifts? Some with prophecy some can speak in tongues, and so on?"
Yes, it does but planting and growing churches is not a spiritual gift. The gifts your friend mentions are given to individuals. We are given different gifts from God but when it comes to building the Church the Bible gives us the model of Jesus, the prophets and apostles. Yes, some churches will excel in certain areas of God’s work but turning from the example of Jesus (calling men to repentance and faith, speaking often and candidly about sin and hell) is not giftedness but error and unfaithfulness.
3. "If our church is bringing more people to Christ than yours, who are you to question how the Lord works?"
This is “The ends justify the means" argument, if a result is achieved who are you to question the method. First, we must ask a pointed question, "What does it mean to bring someone to Christ?" Is getting them to come to church, enjoying an entertainment-based service bringing them to the Lord? We must acknowledge that any person who does not acknowledge their sin, repent and place their faith in Christ has not been brought to the Lord. How can people see their sin when it is rarely referenced? How can they know what it is to follow Christ when they are rarely, if ever told what discipleship is? I have a very simple question I would ask the seeker sensitive church advocate, “Would you allow John the Baptist to preach at your church?” I don’t ask about Jesus because of course who would say they wouldn’t allow Jesus to preach at their church? The truth is though that many of Jesus’ sermons would not be permitted in a seeker sensitive church.
Further, I would ask if there is a willingness to tell people that to come to Christ, they will have to love Him more than their families, (the families they are encouraged to stay home from church with on Christmas morning instead of going to church to worship Christ)? That they must ultimately hate their own lives and give up all their possessions to be His? I am struck by something in the following passage; Jesus has a large crowd following Him, apparently many seekers right? What does Jesus do?
Luke 14:25-33 "Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, 26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27 "Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 "For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? 29 "Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ 31 "Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 "Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. 33 "So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. "
Why didn’t Jesus try to ease these people into being His disciples? Didn’t He consider that some of them may not have had a religious background or perhaps had a bad experience at a synagogue and weren’t to open to church anymore? I make this point because from what you’ve told me your friend speaks of using the seeker sensitive church for one level of working with people and then they move on to another type church. Amazingly, here is Jesus, at the outset with these seekers laying what discipleship means on the line; Jesus describes without pulling punches what belonging to Him means. Your friend’s claim is that they are bringing people to the Lord, if they are not willing to say to seekers what Jesus said to seekers they are not bringing people to the Lord.
In kindness, not knowing your friend, I would mention that this question seems full of the arrogance that often marks the seeker sensitive movement; the large numbers lead them to believe they are doing what others are not. Some years ago, David and I received a letter from the new Willow Creek type start up asking us to send them our seekers being convinced that they knew better how to lead seekers to Christ. This question has within it this attitude, "We have more people coming, we are doing more for the Lord than you". The Day of Judgment will reveal what we’ve all been doing for the Lord, numbers and excitement are proof of nothing in and of themselves. Coupled with the reluctance to preach to people as Jesus did makes the numbers concerning to my mind not something to boast about.
Your friend also mentioned questioning how the Lord works. I must say that the seeker sensitive advocate is questioning the way the Lord works not me. For over six thousand years, God has established His model for dealing with sinful man and it has not been to coddle him and cloak the hard truths about his sinfulness and God’s holiness. The truth is the seeker sensitive movement has decided that God’s method doesn’t really work in our day and they have thought of something better.
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Theundershepherd on December 9, 2005
There are certain things that you are taught as a young Christian that while you cannot provide chapter and verse for have become accepted as Christian truth and practice. One of these has to do with the Christian’s priorities and I was taught and have heard this order many times since my conversion in 1987: God, family, church.
The recent decision of a number of America’s mega-churches to cancel Christmas Lord’s Day worship has brought this question to the fore. The issue of family is at the heart of the decision for most of the churches canceling their services. What a marvel that these groups view church and family time as at odds with each other. But since they do, we see which wins out.
I would like to ask us to consider if the Bible truly teaches us a God, family, church order of priorities. When thinking about this a number of passages come to mind:
Matthew 19:23-30 "And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?" 26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." 27 Then Peter said to Him, "Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?" 28 And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life. 30 "But many who are first will be last; and the last, first."
Was Jesus really serious, people leaving their houses, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers to serve Him? OK, we might go this far but look, He goes further, He includes children in His list. Is this the gospel being preached in our churches today, a gospel that may call a man to leave even his children?
What can we learn about Christ’s order of priorities for us in the call of James and John? James and John at the time of their calling are experiencing the blessing of being in a family business with their father Zebedee. What a wonderful picture, James, John and their father working together on their boat. Certainly Zebedee had trained his sons for this and now he is at the age where his sons are not only a help with the physical work but we can imagine a joy to be with. In earthly terms does it get much better than this?
My dad is a retired butcher, I can remember as a young boy going to sit back in the meat room with my dad while he worked, I sat and watched and we talked and had lunch together; I would often spend hours there, I miss those days. Would a loving God really expect men to leave something as wonderful as this? I mean this is family:
Matthew 4:21-22 "Going on from there He saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and He called them. 22 Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed Him."
The real problem with the God, family, church order can be seen by looking at the three words in their order, something is driven between God and His Church, family. The Bible tells us that the Church is the Bride of Christ, would we in our view of family allow for something to come between a man and his bride? In earthly terms is any relationship higher than that of man and wife? Yet we have come to believe that Jesus will accept there being a wedge that comes between Him and His bride.
The truth is Christ cannot be separated from His Church. What Jesus said He is building is not our families but His Church (Matthew 16:18). While human marriage will cease with this age (Matthew 22:30); Christ’s marriage to His bride the Church is the theme of eternity (Revelation 19 & 21). Often our attitude toward the Church is that it is not really necessary, we tend to view it more as something of man instead of God.
Our willingness to place family second in this list reveals what we have come to believe God created us for. By placing family second we demonstrate that we believe that our lives eclipse in importance God’s work of glorifying Himself through His Church. This of course is why God has and is willing at times to step in and require things of us that make family take the back seat.
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Theundershepherd on
I’m glad that God did not decide to found the church on the "seeker sensitive" model. Why? Because if He did the Church would not exist today. Building the Church has required self-sacrifice, self-denial and a willingness to offend man; all of which the seeker sensitive model refuses to call its adherents and attendees to.
It is amazing that some believe that God started with a certain model and has now forsaken it for another. The seeker sensitive model completely rests on the idea that man is somehow different today than he was four thousand years ago and requires a different method to reach. How wrong this thesis is.
It is true that man is more sophisticated today, he has indoor plumbing, smells better and has made advancements in many areas but all of these leave unaddressed the primary components of man that the Church is called to deal with, his heart and soul.
Is today’s man different in his heart and soul than man was right after the fall? No he isn’t. Man’s problem and need remain unchanged:
Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?"
Ephesians 2:1-3 "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest."
2 Corinthians 4:3-4 "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
Man’s great need is unchanged, it has been, is now and until the end of the age will be to remedy this:
Genesis 3:22-24 "Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever ‘ 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life."
From the fall through Jesus and the Apostles right up through the Great Awakening God’s remedy for man has been to show him his sin through preaching the demands of His holy Law and calling him to repent of his sin and place his faith in Christ, how do some believe God has changed His method? Should we believe that Jesus would use any other method than the perfect? I am certain that many seeker sensitive advocates are well intentioned but don’t they realize that fallen man has always hated hearing this message? That only those God is drawing are willing to listen to it?
The word "seeker" has been hijacked and redefined by this modern movement. A seeker is anyone who will give God the time of day with a certain enticement and removal of offense. Biblically, a seeker is someone God is at work within, to whom He grants a desire to be right with Him at any cost. The Bible tells us that a seeker can be called a "viper", "worm", "child of wrath" and "evil" and say "Amen" after-wards.
Time magazine has noted with interest the debate that is taking place between adherents of the seeker sensitive movement and those of us who maintain that the ancient boundaries are not to be moved. Many will say, "Stop your bickering, the world is watching" let them watch and listen, perhaps God will use the debate to awaken lost souls.
While I have used the word "method" a number of times in this post, we must not allow ourselves to minimize the importance of this debate. This debate over methodology is not about how to raise funds or get adults to be Boy Scout troop leaders, at the root of this debate is the salvation of souls and the glory of God.
